Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 02:01:45 UTC No. 16238781

>>16238250
How does this work?
The "smallest" particle must be made of something and that must also be made of something right?

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 02:05:47 UTC No. 16238784

>>16238250
Quarks and gluons barely exist in any meaningful sense to begin with.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 02:09:34 UTC No. 16238791

>>16238781
jeez
read leibniz, loser

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 02:13:26 UTC No. 16238797

>>16238250
> Question #2: it is even scientifically useful to do so?
So far, no.
It hasn’t helped us develop better nuclear power, or fusion power.
I don’t see any benefit to spending so much money on large particle accelerators.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 02:18:01 UTC No. 16238801

>>16238797
>so much money
It cost less than $10 billion to build the LHC. It's really not very expensive in the realm of large-scale projects.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 02:19:56 UTC No. 16238803

>>16238801
imagine how many migrants and refugees we could house and feed with that money

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 02:30:10 UTC No. 16238819

Fuck that shit. I just want magnetic monopoles.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 02:33:36 UTC No. 16238828

>>16238819
Won't ever happen. Sorry.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 02:50:59 UTC No. 16238856

>>16238250
If the world is continuous, then it should be indefinitely splitable.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 02:57:09 UTC No. 16238866

>>16238856
Space is continuous. Matter comes in discrete little lumps called quanta.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 04:31:17 UTC No. 16238982

>>16238784
explain this real life footage then:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKo3cUlMKZ8

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 16:46:43 UTC No. 16239624

>>16238250
quarks and electrons are modeled as the same kind of particle, when taken in an abstract sense without considering interactions, which is a bit stupid since interactions is what makes them behave so different.
The theory of elementary particles has already classified all possible elementary particles. For spin 1/2 its all electron-like particles, with different interactions but with no other constitutive parts.
Of course its all a theory, quarks were proposed as a "maybe theres other types of electrons and everything else is made of these", referring to protons, neutrons and many weird compound particles of quarks. Heisenberg was the first to propose quarks, he only proposed two types, up and down, akin to spin, and proposed the idea of isospin which was "like spin".

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 16:54:25 UTC No. 16239633

>>16239624
explain spin like im antisemitic

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 16:56:33 UTC No. 16239636

>>16239633
Intrinsic angular moment. Jews.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 17:06:39 UTC No. 16239658

>>16239636
how does different angular momentum change things so much?

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 17:13:02 UTC No. 16239675

>>16239658
Can you elaborate on your question?

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 17:13:32 UTC No. 16239677

>>16238250
Matter is a continuum so scientist are bound to discover infinitely many more elementary "particles".

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 17:19:36 UTC No. 16239684

>>16239677
Matter is not a continuum, no. It's quantized.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 18:09:55 UTC No. 16239725

>>16238250
Some quarks are pretty big (heavy) and are not the smallest particles known at all. Neutrinos are very small and definitely smaller than quarks.